Do you agree with the supreme courts decision that the baker shouldn't have had to decorate a wedding cake for a gay couple because of his religion?

  • Yes
    Vote A
  • No
    Vote B
Select age and gender to cast your vote:
I'm a GirlI'm a Guy

3|0
1110

Most Helpful Guys

  • I agree with the decision and feel it didn't go far enough. No one should ever be forced to provide a private based service for another if it is against their moral/religious beliefs and principles. America is based on liberty, not communism! Or at least we used to be free.

    0|1
    0|0
  • Yes, I agree with it. Business owners who can be proven beyond reasonable doubt to hold religious beliefs should be able to refuse to engage in transactions where their beliefs are in conflict with those transactions. Those beliefs should be readily evidenced within the belief system that the person subscribes to, rather than them just deciding that God told them not to serve tomatoes to communists (for example).

    As customers of a business you have the ability to take your business elsewhere. If the choices of a given business prove unpopular enough then they will go out of business. That's how it works. There is no need for the government to become involved except in cases of fraud, risk to health and safety, acting in a manner such as to prohibit competition, etc.

    1|2
    0|0

Most Helpful Girls

  • No. Because now you open the floodgates to people who don't want to serve various racial groups, or whatever other arbitrary traits they want to discriminate based on. There's no justification for refusing to make a gay wedding cake that doesn't also allow a baker to not make a cake for an interracial wedding or whatever else.

    And what else does this apply to? Muslim supermarket staff refusing to restock bacon and alcohol? Usually when we hear story's about that happening nobody sides with the Muslim, now you have to or you hold a double standard.

    1|0
    0|4
  • Yes. Gay people have rights and religious people have rights. And rightly so. The baker has every right to refuse their custom if it's against his religious beliefs. The gay couple should go elsewhere for their wedding cake. I don't believe in taking away one person's rights just to give another person theirs. The baker shouldn't be forced to go against his religious teachings. That causes prejudice.

    Just like if a gay coupled owned a restaurant, and a religious couple wanted to dine there , the gay couple should have every right to refuse their custom based on the couple's religious stance against gay people. The religious couple should respect that decision and just go elsewhere

    0|0
    0|0

Recommended Questions

Loading...

Have an opinion?

What Guys Said 8

  • All I really see in this case is the hypocrisy.

    It is ILLEGAL in America to refuse service to someone over their religious beliefs due to civil rights legislation. On the other hand, it is completely LEGAL for religious people to refuse service to LGBT individuals.

    Either accept both or drop the protections for religious people to make it equal.
    I just can't stand hypocrisy and inequality in all its forms.

    1|1
    0|0
    • Exactly! I'm right there with ya. Either abolish the section of the Civil Rights act that makes it illegal to refuse service, or make it so you can't refuse ANYONE. Why are there exceptions like this?

    • Show All
    • @ravedave I.. wouldn’t say it overrides the ruling. I think in the end it’ll get way more complex. We will see cra deals with an absolute must not do xxxxx. The Supreme Court has basically said the right to gay marriage will conflict with the cra. They’ll find a compromise in the long run but this ruling isn’t going to be the standard

    • @Izumiblu thank you for clarifying more on the specifics.

  • If you deny people a service that you would provide to others because of what gender those people are, you're discriminating against them just like you'd be discriminating against people if you denied them a service that you would provide someone else because of the race (s) those people were. It's as simple as that.

    2|0
    0|2
    • Would you force a black baker to bake a cake for the KKK, or antifa members to bake a cake for a PoliceLivesMatter event?

    • Show All
    • @Ad_Quid_Orator, something important about this case is that the baker did not refuse to sell them a cake. The baker refused to make a custom one because he refused to take part in a gay wedding. The ceremony itself is not protected under discrimination laws.

      However his artistry, which was what the case was about, not the cake itself, is protected under the Constitution under freedom of expression, and his beliefs, which tied into his artistry, is also protected by the freedom of religion, which is protected under the clause "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or PROHIBITING THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF..."


    • Then again, the common sense thing for the gay couple to do is simply go to another baker instead of waste all this time and effort to ultimately lose and secure a victory for religious freedom and expression. If anything, that gay couple did the United States a favor. Perhaps the next time this happens, the baker should sue for discrimination against his faith by the gay couple for trying to force him to betray his religious convictions, and religious beliefs are covered under discrimination laws as well.

      Perhaps now that gay couple and others like them won't go causing problems where there shouldn't have been any. They were refused, so they should have moved on.

  • He has religious freedom. And the supreme court allowed him to win because his religious beliefs were not heard, not properly represented and explained. That's why they ruled according to them. Nothing to do with whether he was right or not.

    0|2
    1|0
    • Freedom of religion isn't the freedom to discriminate.

    • Show All
    • It is not about opinion. It is about religious beliefs. He should not be forced to do it. It is not like homosexuals are being denied the right of having a cake. They can go to a secular place. We need to respect other people.

    • And if a religion said interracial marriages are wrong, should a follower of that religion be allowed to refuse service to an interracial couple?

  • I agree with the decision. Do I think that's cool of them? No. But it IS the Baker's business and it does go against his religious beliefs. I just think of it as him losing business

    0|0
    0|0
  • yes, just because they have the right to get married doesn't mean they get to shit on the bakers right of religious freedom. if they really wanted a cake they could easily go find a baker who would do it without needing to be sued

    0|0
    0|0
  • I agree. A private enterprise should have the right to refuse service to anyone they want.

    1|0
    0|0
  • Its about choosing to. accept an. idea reguardless of where its comming from..

    So he can reject the gay message but can't reject the gay couple before finding out what the message was..

    0|0
    0|0
  • See, I'm on the fence on this one. Because the Civil Rights Act states that you can't turn someone away because of their of race, gender, disability, or religion. How is sexuality so dissimilar from those criteria that makes it different?

    If the argument is that it conflicts with your religious beliefs, then shouldn't a Christian baker be allowed to refuse a Muslim couple? It doesn't make sense, it's a double standard.

    I'm all for free speech and self regulation, but I hate double standards, so either it's okay for business to refuse service to ANYONE, or you're not allowed to refuse service for any of these reasons.

    0|0
    0|0

What Girls Said 9

  • The baker should be able to make the decision as to who he makes cakes for, and what sort of cakes. In the UK, it is a conflict between the laws of contract and the laws of discrimination.

    A baker with cakes in his shop window is only giving an "Offer to treat". No contract is made until money changes hands. All he has to do is say he is not able to do it. That should be the end of the matter. No reasons need be given.

    0|2
    0|0
  • Yes. I think that the baker's choice not to bake for them was really, really stupid and I think their beliefs are morally wrong. However, I believe that they should have the right to choose who they serve, even if I don't personally agree with their decision.

    0|3
    0|0
  • If it was my shop, I should have to right and exercise that right to refuse any business. Kinda like this...
    www.clipartbest.com/.../dT6azqyGc.jpeg which I already have on my walls.

    0|0
    0|0
  • Course. Shops retain the right to refuse service, and there's more than one bakery to go to. Put it on Facebook, and a high class celebrity chef might do it too nowadays.

    0|1
    0|0
    • If he refused service to an interracial couple, there's more than one bakery.

    • Same for gays. Not everyone has to support them. That's fine. There's more than one bakery.

    • And why would someone force someone else to bake a wedding cake? That goes against all that I know about marriage. I'd rather have a baker who's interested and wants to be a part of mine.

  • It's the baker's own business, no matter how you slice the cake, as my step father's new girlfriend says.

    1|3
    1|0
    • Refusing a service to people because of the gender (s) of those people is discrimination, no matter how you slice the cake.

  • I worked for a baker who did strictly LGBT events. He wouldn't turn heteros away but the point was to be there for that community. Anyone has right to refuse service to anyone.

    0|0
    0|0
  • It was a throw away case. They didn’t set any precedent. They said that the state acted unfairly and was biased against the religious shop owner.

    Ultimately, they kicked the can down the road. They didn’t want to answer the question and I don’t blame them. It isn’t the time.

    They don’t want to impede upon religious liberty or newly minted rights for same sex couples. They like to let society shake it out for a couple of decades before rehashing and I think that’s the right way to do it.

    Courts are lead by public opinion more than you know. They don’t want riots and are appointed for life. They have their choice of which cases to take.

    They rule on the Constitution as they understand it but they rarely make controversial rulings. The court isn’t supposed to be political but for the best interest of the people.

    0|0
    0|0
  • No, isn't there a no-discrimation policy businesses must pertain to?

    0|0
    0|1
  • His own Business. xx

    0|0
    0|0

Recommended myTakes

Loading...